The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. PARAG. 1. Shewing, that the Clergies rights are as alterable, by King and Parliament, as the Layities; in anſwer to Doctor Boughen's 10. Chapter.
HEre you invert the method I went in, but without juſt ground; for I followed the Authors I anſwered, in that order, in which they came out in publike and to that I ſhal hold you; and therefore, now I muſt come to the 10. Chapter, reſerving the ſeventh, eighth and nineth, to their due place. In your tenth Chapter, you'r hard put to it, and make a great noiſe to little purpoſe, Firſt,
Parag. 1. You make an inference, and quarrel with it. Its lawful for the King to abrogate the rights of the Clergy. ergo, He may aboliſh Epiſcopacy. Its for all the world, as if one ſhould ſay, Its lawful for the King to take away the rights of Lawyers, ergo, He may alſo take away Judicature.
But you are bad at Paralels, for there may be Eccleſiaſtical Judicatures, without your Biſhops; which are but the iſſue of humane cuſtome, as Jerom tels you.
Then Parag. 2. You raiſe a fort againſt a fort. Its lawful for the King to abrogate the rights of the Clergy, it is therefore lawful for him to abrogate Presbytery.
I anſwer, we ſpeak not here of lawfulneſs in general, but with relation to the Kings oath; and ſure, you do not think, that I conceive, the Kings oath makes it unlawful for him to abrogate Presbyterie, that is, Presbyterial government. But for what you ſay, touching the order of Presbyters, parag. 3. and the order of Biſhops; there, I muſt tell you, that the King cannot take away the one, becauſe, all confeſs it to be an Ordinance of Chriſt: But for that of Biſhops, its an ordinance of man, as I have proved, and ſo alterable. Your fourth and fifth Paragraphes, arae digreſſion from this Queſtion.
Parag. 6. You ſay Well, bound he is by his oath to maintain the laws of the land, while they are laws, &c. But how long are theſe laws in force? till abrogated by juſt power in a regular way. To this you ſubſcribe, adding, but the just power is in his Majeſtie, by your own confeſſion, to maintain and abrogate laws.
I Anſwer, If, by power to abrogate laws, you mean, that they cannot be abrogated without him; I confeſs it: but if you mean it, as ſometime you ſeem to import it, that it is in his power, without concurrence of others, I may well deny it; becauſe he doth not aſſume to himſelf ſuch power. Your 7, 8, 9. parag. I ſhall let paſs, as having nothing of conſequence to the caſe in hand, though they contain ſome extravagant expreſſions.
Parag. 10. You examine my words, that if any of the Clergies rights be abrogated, by juſt power, he ſtands no longer engaged to that particular. Here you quarrel for want of adding, juſt power in a regular way, which was not excluded, but included in my expreſſion; and you your ſelf confeſs, parag. 12. when you ſay, "juſt power goes alway in a regular way. But you think I left out that expreſſion, in a regular way, becauſe I am not able to ſet down a regular way, wherein the Clergies right may be abrogated.
Sure you are deceived; for that is the regular way, wherein all their canonical priviledges, that are contrariant to the laws of the Land, are abrogated, that is, by the King, and Houſes of Parliament. See then how childiſhly you trifle, Parag. 10, 22. And with as little reaſon, do you break out, parag. 13. What? a Clergie man, and a Preacher of the Word of God, and altogether for ruine and deſtruction? Surely this is your corrupt gloſs; I am for paring off that which is humane addition, that the Miniſterie which is of Gods inſtitution, may be more free, and ſhine more bright; and this too, to deliver the King and Kingdom, from a deſtroying war. Is this to deſtroy or preſerve? Let the Reader judge. And therefore for your impertinent reviling from Corah and Judas, they will but reflect ſhame on your ſelf; neither do I detract from my office, when I bring Miniſters into the ſame rank with other Subjects, in regard of their humane, and alterable honours or priviledges; for I ſpeak of none other.
Next, Parag. 14. You ask, what rights of the Clergie I would have abrogated. An idle queſtion, to raiſe an odium; the queſtion being in general, whether, as the laws that concern the rights of the Laytie, may be altered by King and Parliament, without breach of his oath; ſo alſo the laws that concern the rights of the Clergie, be alterable by the ſame power.
As impertinent, falſe, and abſurd is your reply, Parag. 15. that I argue from any rights of the Kingdom, to all the rights of the Clergie; when the ſame ſign, any, is uſed in both places, as your ſelf ſet it down but three lines before. The Star-chamber, and high Commiſſion Courts ſtood by law, yet theſe were aboliſht; ſo may Biſhops and their Courts, and yet ample liberties, and immunities may belong to the Clergy, and as uſefull to the Church of God, and more ſuitable to his Word, as hath been ſhewn; and therefore your queſtion, whether it be lawful to take away all that the Clergy hath? is meerly to make ſhew of ſaying ſomething, when indeed you are deſtitute of a rationall anſwer: for do I infer, that the King may take away all that the Clergy hath? or only ſuch particulars, as upon conſideration, to him, and his Houſes of Parliament, ſeem inconvenient? let the reader judge.
Parag. 16. But you ſay, it cannot be done by a juſt power, becauſe justice gives every one his own, according to Gods command, Render to every one his due. Good Doctor, doth this prove any more, the injuſtice of altering laws, concerning Clergy, then concerning Laity? are not their laws, their rights and inheritances? but with this proviſo, that they may be judged on by Parliament, whether convenient or inconvenient; and accordingly, either continue, or receive repeal, with the conſent of the King, and no wrong done? for the laws are but their due, with that reſtriction; ſo the caſe is with the Clergy, till you diſprove it, which though you would fain do, yet for ought I ſee, you are at your wits end, by your fillings up, parag. 17.18. with ſuch things as contain nothing towards an anſwer, but ſomewhat to confirm my aſſertion out of Auguſtine, charity prefers publique good before her own private intereſt: So ſome priviledges of the Clergy are to be ſubmitted by them to publike intereſt, promoted by peace and union.
At laſt, you come to ſay ſomething to the purpoſe that the only regular way to abrogate any of the rights of the Clergy, or Laity, is at their own motion, or conſent made, and delivered by their repreſentatives in Parliament, or convocation. Is this true, in the general? was it true of the abrogation of the Popes Supremacies, and ſuch live immunities of the Clergy? as their Sanctuaries for criminall offendors, &c. could not there be an alteration of theſe, regularly attempted, without it had proceeded from the repreſentative of the Clergy? Sure then, I doubt, they had ſtood much longer then they did, to the prejudice of the Church and kingdom.
Reaſon it is, I confeſs, that if any of their Priviledges be in queſtion, that they ſhould be heard, and their reaſons weighed; but if, after all they can ſay, it appears to the King and Parliament, that ſome priviledg of theirs is inconvenient to weal-publique, it may be altered without them, if they be froward; and yet we allow them the priviledg of ſubjects; for all other ſubjects have their priviledges thus ſubjected to the wiſdom of king and Parliament; and yet this no tyranny, but good and needfull policy: and ſo alſo 20. & 21. parag. which are the laſt of this chapter, are anſwered.
CHAP. V. PARAG. 2. Wherein is ſhewed, that the diſtinction that is between Clergy and Laity, and their priviledges in this Kingdom, hinders not, but the priviledges of the one are alterable by King and Parliament, as well as of the other, in anſwer to Doctor Boughens 11. Chapter.
IN your 11. Chap. Parag. 1. You ſay, to grate the very bones of the Clergy; (I tell you) that this oath was ſo framed, when the Clergy of England was a diſtinct ſociety, or corporation from the people of England. I do ſay indeed, that the Clergy, and Laitie, were diſtinct Corporations, but not for that end, that you mention, to grate the very bones of the Clergy, but to deliver the laborious Clergy rather from that tyrannie, that they were not ſo long ſince under, by a few uſurpers, or abuſers of power; and I do not only ſay, but prove, that the Clergy and Laitie, were ſuch diſtinct corporations, as that they were under two Supremacies; and that I ſay, was popery; deny it, if you have the face: but firſt you ask, "when this oath was framed; which is but a cavill; ſith you know it was framed before Henry 8. in whoſe daies the Pope loſt his Supremacie here. We read of the oath before the Altar, according to the cuſtome in William 1. Dan. hiſtor. pag. 36.
But you ſay, his Majeſties oath is grounded on the word of God, according to the promiſe, Kings ſhall be nurſing fathers.
I anſwer, the queſtion is not, whether the king doth well to maintain the rights and priviledges of the Church; he is bound to maintain the juſt rights and priviledges of Church and Laytie both: but the queſtion is, whether, as notwithſtanding his engagement to the Laytie; he may at the motion or (if it like you better) at the Petition of the Houſes, alter any law that concerns the people; he may not alſo, on the like petition, alter what concerns the Clergie? therefore you muſt ſpeak to this, or you ſpeak not ad idem, and proceed by the fallacie, ex ignoratione elenchi. I would have you alſo know, the Biſhops are not the Church; that is a Popiſh fancie. Church is otherwaies taken, in the note you touch parag. 3. even for the whole body of the Jews.
Parag. 4. You ſeem to oppoſe my aſſertion, that now the Clergy and Laytie are one body politique, but by a weak reaſon, Why then are the Biſhops thruſt out of the Houſe of Peers? as though every ſocietie of the body politique, were to have a party in the Houſe of Peers; neither were they thruſt out, as you uncivilly expreſs it, but excluded by a legal Bill.
After, Parag. 5. You confeſs, what before you made ſemblance to deny, that the Clergy are not a ſeverall and diſtinct body, but a ſeverall ſtate, or Corporation, under the ſame body, which I willingly grant; but thence infer, if they be but a diſtinct member of the ſame body, then the heads of the body politique, under which they are, have the ſame power over them and their priviledges, as over the other part of the body, the Laytie. It is therefore needleſs, and uſeleſs pains to prove, that a Clergie-man, and others, may have diſtinct relations, Parag. 5. 6. 7. Who denies it? but its a falſe calumnie, that the Miniſters and Stewards of God are cut out of all; for the thing aimed at in this treatiſe, is but to reſtore to ſome of them, what others, without warrant from God, had uſurp'd from them.
Whereas you inquire parag. 8. If this diſtinction between Clergie and Laytie, be a branch of Popery? You muſt add ſo diſtinct, as to be under two Supremacies, for ſo it was before Henry 8. and ſo its expreſt in my Caſe; and where I pray you, is ſuch a diſtinction expreſt to be continued, ſince Henry the 8th? You cannot ſhew it; nor doth any thing that you bring, Parag 8. or 9. conclude it: diſtinct they were, but not ſo diſtinct, but ſtill they and their priviledges, were under the power of the ſame Supremacie, as your ſelf confeſs, Parag. 10, 11. where your inſinuation againſt me, of ſeting up two Supremacies, is but a flaſh; for I ſhall ſhew in the laſt Chapter, that the Supremacie I give to the Parliament, is not abſolute, but foreign, and two ſuch are not inconſiſtent, neither doth ſuch reſpective Supremacie, make the Parliament lawleſs, or ſubject to no power: and for your cloſing queſtion, Where then are the two Supremacies that you erect?
I anſwer, I affirm it was ſo, but now it is aboliſht, and ſo I charge not you with it; but infer, that being equally under one Supremacie, that one Supremacie hath equal power over the priviledges of both, which was the thing to be proved. Neither do I deny what you affirm, parag. 12, 13. That there are two diſtinct juriſdictions in our Land, under the ſame head; Neither do I denie, de facto but a Biſhop by the ſtanding laws, is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of Juſtice in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical: But the querie is, whether this be ſo unalterable, that the King and Parliament may not put it to a companie of Presbyters? Which you have not yet diſproved. Whether covetouſnes, and ambition be more amongſt Prelates; then Presbyters, whom you accuſe, God muſt judge. But whether they be not like to reſt more among thoſe, that would ingroſs all, then among thoſe that would have juriſdiction, and maintenance divided, men may eaſily judge.
For what you ſay, parag. 14. of Timothy and Titus; I formerly proved them to be Evangeliſts, and what they had extraordinarie, to be ceaſ'd; what they have ordinary, to reſt in Paſtors, who are Presbyter-Biſhops, the higheſt ordinarie Officers. For that ſaying of Cyprian, Eccleſia ſuper Epiſcopos conſtituitur: I would have you reconcile it with that, 1 Cor. 3.11. Other foundation can no man lay, then that which is layd, Jeſus Chriſt. We acknowledg de facto, in Cyprians time, that the acts of the Church were ruled by the Biſhops, but that, as Jeroms tells you, was by humane cuſtome, not Divine diſpoſition; nor was it without Presbyters, as you would have it: who therefore are as far from the government of his times, as we; what you quote after, may be but the heat of a Biſhop, to whom we oppoſe Saint Ierem, on Titus 1. and Phil. 1. What you cite out of Ignatius, is ſpoken, as upon ſearch I finde, onelyonly of that Biſhop, as he then ſtood Orthodox, in oppoſition to ſome curſed weeds, or Hereticks of the devils planting; but when the Biſhop was an Heretick, as you know in many places it often fell out, would they have been bleſſed or curſed, that held with the Biſhop, think you?
For what you add, "touching the privileges of Clergy; For the moſt part, you falſly calumniate me, that I ſeek to ruine them; you know, I call the alieanation of their means Sacriledg; neither do I envie any of their juſt priviledges; but this is that which I have in hand; whereas there be two ſorts of priviledges, ſome Divine, ſome humane, I queſtion onelyonly whether thoſe humane priviledges, ſeparable from the offices appointed by Chriſt in his word, ſuch as the Monarchie of one above all other, may not upon adviſement, for the good of the Republique, admit of alteration, as well as Laypriviledges? Therefore you ſlander me groſly in objecting, that I would take away all honour from the Ministery, that the Scriptures by propheſie or precept have given to them. But you, on the contrarie, egregiouſly abuſe the Scripture, in applying what the Scripture ſaith, by way of honour, or priviledg of the Miniſterie, that is, of Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangliſts and Presbyter-Biſhops, (which onelyonly are the Scriptures Biſhops) to a few Dioceſans; Creatures whom the holy page never knew: And ſo you-ſleight the generalitie of Paſtors, to exalt a few Lord-Biſhops.
Conſtantines affection was pious to the Miniſters of Chriſt. But the Biſhops he honoured ſo, were men of another condition then thoſe you plead for; they lorded it not in the Church, without the joynt help of their Presbyters in government. And further, if there were not ſome error of the times, in ſome of the honours which he gave; how came they ſo quickly to fall together by the ears for Primacie? And to give occaſion to that obſervation, That when their Chalices were wooden, the Biſhops were golden, but the Biſhops became woodden, when their Chalices became golden. Sure the general abuſe gives occaſion to ſuſpect ſome error in expreſſion of thoſe affections. But I hope I have ſaid enough, to let the intelligent Reader ſee, how far that aſſertion that I maintain (to prooure peace and ſafetie to Church and Kingdom, ready to periſh by an unnatural war) is from detracting from any juſt or uſeful reſpect, commanded, from the people to the Miniſters, if faithful; though the meaneſt Paſtours; which I know, and people will finde, God will reward as done to himſelf.
But one thing is not unworthy notice, in parag. 8. Where you ſay, Paul willeth the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus their Apoſtle, or Biſhop, and alſo chargeth them to hold ſuch in reputation.
Conſider, I pray you, had not the Philippians, then, other ſuch as Epaphroditus? elſe why doth he give them charge of others of like quality? And may you not thence ſee, that Epaphroditus was no ſingular Biſhop, but ſuch an one as might have other Presbyters his fellows in like honours.
Caſe of Conſcience Reſolved.
VVHo knows not, that one of the priviledges of the Clergie, was, for the Biſhops to ſit and vote in the Houſe of Peers? yet that is aboliſht, as incongruous to their calling. And then why may not the removall of their Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction be conſented to, as well, if it prove inconvenient and prejudicial to the Church? The abolition of the one, is no more againſt the oath, then of the other.